tmiversity-National Oceanographic Laboratory System I

FFZescarch Vessel Operators Committee

Volume lg-, Number 1

RVOC NEWSLETTER May 1, 1992

My thanks to all of you who have sent me articles. I have reduced the copy size of many of these articles in an attempt to minimize the overall size of the newsletter. As this is my first newsletter please pass along any recommendations you might have.

I believe, like our annual meeting, the newsletter offers an opportunity for all of us to share our unique experiences (equipment, personnel, operational, etc.). These experiences do not have to wait until the annual meeting to be passed along. If you have something you feel will be of interest, send it to me and I will include it.

Best Regards, Paul

Update from the Chairman, RVOC

During the first three months of this year I have attended one UNOLS Council meeting and a workshop on the future of Coastal Marine Science. The UNOLS Council meeting focused quite a bit of attention on the size of the UNOLS fleet and the amount of funding available to support it. The Council was concerned that continued funding cuts, such as were required in 1993, could lead to potential safety and maintenance problems. The end result of that discussion was for the Council to recommend to the funding agencies that they form a "Blue Ribbon Panel" to address the issues of fleet size, fleet distribution, and future funding levels. The tasking to this panel could include:

a. Making projections for science programs for the next 5-10 years.

b. What ship mix can best support these programs, considering economics and scientific capabilities?

c. What can be done to insure that ship funds are commensurate with projected scientific needs?

d. Can short term lay ups continue to be used to correct budget deficiencies? Are there more effective ways to approach the problem?

e. Does the current and projected "fleet problem" warrant the long term down sizing of the fleet? What criteria and procedure should be used?

f. Is the current geographical distribution of ships appropriate?

The panel would be made up of knowledgeable individuals that do not have any personal or institutional stake in the outcome, if their recommendations are followed. As you can see, if the funding agencies form this panel and follow their recommendations the results could have a significant impact on some or all operators.

At the UNOLS Council meeting I presented the RVOC letter on Federal funding of ship operations and the draft guidelines for inspection of chartered vessels. No action was taken on either item. There was some discussion of the charter inspection checklist with a strong bias towards keeping it structured as "guidelines" to be used as a tool by the person inspecting a chartered vessel rather than a stringent checklist. I will keep you posted on any further action taken with regards to either item.

Flowing from this subject was some discussion about the responsibilities and liabilities of a Chief Scientist. The Council decided to form a panel to review this subject and make recommendations. Joe Coburn will represent RVOC on this panel. Joe will also serve as the RVOC liaison to the Fleet Improvement Committee with Ron Hutchinson as the alternate.

The Fleet Improvement Committee sponsored a workshop on the Future of Coastal Marine Science to which I was invited, as a representative of RVOC. The only other marine superintendent attending was Steve Rabalais. The meeting was oriented around researchers in the Coastal Marine Sciences who were charged with identifying the scientific needs for this region over the next decade and then identifying the resources needed to meet those needs. The first day started with various keynote speakers, followed by work sessions with the conference divided into four work groups. The four assigned areas were; Time Series, Synoptic Studies, Multi-Disciplinary Studies, and Data Management/Communications. I did not fit into any of these categories so I ended up in the last one. The second day started with a summmary report from each group followed by breaking into four new groups to look at resources needed. Those groupings were; large ships, non-ship facilities, small ships, and instrumentation. I was in the small ship group. The third day was limited to summary reports from the second work groups. This workshop was very ambitious in the amount of territory that they were trying to cover during the time. A thorough report of the workshop will be generated over the next few months and will be available later this year.

There were some highlights of this workshop that I can pass on prior to seeing the report. One is that within this community there are a lot of potential new ship users that have been accustomed to using small boats and chartered vessels. If they receive adequate funding many would like to use more capable vessels. There was a certain amount of discussion about designing and building new vessels that would meet some of their "unique" requirements. One of the parameters that seemed to be important was the ability to work in very shallow water and still be a stable and sea kindly platform in rough weather. Defining these parameters will obviously determine the type of platform and platforms that work best. In addition, daily cost is an important factor for many of the people in this community because they are used to working with small and less expensive vessels and they usually get their funding from sources that cause them to pay shiptime directly from their own budget. In the small ship workshop, Woods Hole presented preliminary plans for a SWATH vessel under 100 feet that would be capable of year round work in the New England area. The University of Miami presented plans for a catamarran, also around 100 feet, that would work in shallow reef areas and have enough speed and stability to transit the Gulf stream quickly. Both institutions also have as part of their planning goals a daily operating cost around $3,000. It was also clear that many of the existing vessels are capable of meeting the needs of Coastal Marine Science as they are or with some modification in equipment. It will be interesting to see how clearly the future needs of this community can be presented in the final report and even more interesting to see to what extent funding agencies will be willing and able to support their desires.

Regards to all, Mike

Annual Meeting J The annual meeting is now slated for 26, 27, 28 October and will be hosted by Dean Letzring and Texas A & M University in Galveston, Texas. Dean will have packages mailed out in August. In the meantime, we have begun to put together an agenda.

Suggested Agenda Items:

At the end of last year's meeting the following items were suggested:

Bottom Paints FCC or industry representative on communications equipment ECDIS Science program coordination (workshop) Crew training(workshop)

Since that time the following Discussions, Reports, Workshops, or Speakers have been suggested:

ADCP's Aniericans with Disabilities Act(ADA) Automation/Alarm Systems(Presentations or Reports) Crew Compensation( Charge from Don Heinrichs, workshop) Crew Training and Pooling( Workshop or Discussion) Winches and/or Cranes( panel of speakers from manufacturer's) FCC Speaker, GMDSS Kathryn Hosford(Speaker) Future RN Needs(Workshop) GMDSS Equipment and Standards(Presentation or Report) GPS p-codes(Discussion ) Hazardous materials Update(Report) Inspection of chartered vessels(Discussion or workshop) Liability and Responsibility of the Chief Scientist Master of a SWATH Vessel(Speaker) Medical Advisory System and the competition(Report or discussion) Modern Paint Coating Systems(Potential Speaker) New navigation systems(ECDIS) and equipment OPA 90(Reportl Discussion) Sea Water Piping, Gallionella, the bug that eats steel( Robert Hinton) Ship Operations Funding for ONR Precision Depth Recorders

Please review the agenda items and send an E-Mail to RVOC.OPERATORS before May 30, or sooner if you can, that lists your top six items in order of priority. If you want to suggest additional items to be considered by everyone else, please put out an E-Mail message to RVOC.OPERATORS right away describing your suggestion. As always, any comments on -:ow to improve our meetings are welcome. If you are suggesting speakers please be as thorough as possible in identifying the person and how to get in touch with them.

Safety Training Tapes

In the clippings is an article from the March-April 1993 issue of the Proceedings of the Marine Safety Council on video tapes available for safety related training. These tapes are

available from GMG International (703-620-6000) at a cost of $10.00 each. While portions of these tapes are geared to the Military Sealift Command safety program the instructional portion on safety related practices is pretty well presented. The longest tape is 20 minutes although most of them are under 15 minutes.

RVOC Directory

Appended is an RVOC Directory. Please take the time to review it. If any of the information needs to be updated please pass the updated information along to me, Paul Ljunggren.

GMDSS and The Radio Officer Act of 1993

There are two bills circulating in Congress relating to GMDSS and the requirement for Radio Officers sponsored by Senator Inouye. One recognizes that there is no longer a requirement for a radiotelegraph and therefore the radio officer. The other bill recognizes GMDSS, but seeks to require the onboard capability of someone to maintain the equipment. I have enclosed copies of the bills in the clippings section.

RVOC Directory May 1, 1993

Name Institution Tel. No. Fax No. Telemail

Tom Althouse SIO, UCSD 619-1643 619-534-1635 SCRPPS.MARFAC

Tim Askew Harbor Branch 407-465-2400 407-465-2446 HBOLSHIPS

Harry Barnes Bermuda,BBS 809-297-1880 809-297-8143 BDA.BIOSTATION

Joe Coburn WHOI 508-548-1400 508-540-8675 WHOLSHIPS

Bruce Cornwall U of Maryland 410-326-4284 410-326-6342 CHEASAPEAKE.BAY

Bill Coste U of Hawaii 808-848-2661 808-848-5451 UH.SNUG.HARBOR

Don Gibson U of Texas 512-749-6735 512-749-6777 T.WHITLEDGE

Linda Goad U of Michigan 313-763-5393 313-747-2748 T.MOORE

Bill Hahn U of Rhode Island 401-792-6203 401-792-6574 RHODEISLAND

Robert Hinton U of Washington 206-543-5062 206-543-6073 R.HINTON

Ron Hutchinson U of Miami 305-361-4880 305-361-0546 R.HUTCHINSON

Lee Knight Skidaway 912-598-2486 912-598-2751 D.MENZEL

Dean Letzring Texas A & M 409-740-4469 409-740-4456 RV.GYRE

Quentin Lewis Duke 919-728-2111 919-728-2158 DUICE.UNC

Paul Ljunggren LDEO 914-365-8845 914-359-6817 LAMONT

Don Newman USC 310-830-4570 310-830-4570 R.PIPER

Waddy Owens U of Delaware 302-645-4320 310-645-4006 W.OWEN

Ken Palfrey OSU 503-867-0224 503-867-0294 OSU.SHIPS

Mike Prince Moss Landing 408-633-3534 408-633-4580 MLML.SHIPS

Steve Rabalais LUMCON 504-851-2800 504-851-2874 LUMCON

Tom Smith U of Alaska 907-224-5261 907-224-3392 T.SMITH

Entire RVOC RVOC.OPERATORS

. -0 8 4) c C. Ct. co . 3 s .3 3 zil z a E tx, -I — 'Z' 1 . C 4: a -. .- *4 C t g

-c c ii 5 1 5 & ? ii >, 2 r, z E l''' I t -2 i t-...;::_ar.2;5,,„tzg 77 ,2 4. : ;_., i -a. F, i ,•i i . -I ,c,'

`74:., Z. '.7.-.4.t,41:40,..i . a]-1'ts ", 7g— 1 zis a-S— 3-5 r. tz.- °-'217. s., B ia ,..9E.-et111 -4`63 'V811c5/gi 1:, X S.' . _.< i...,- 4 0 > '71- 2 1-, Z a a.,.. . , .,, ?..., , .g. t.). •=71 ..t %., -Z tf -c i Q Jo z 7)3 2-̂ :,, -... E•-• 2 3 Z 4 rdl CI) Cr, g

4 1 0

Pro

ceed

ing

s o

f th

e M

ari

ne S

afe

ty C

ou

nci

l • M

arc

h-A

pril 1

99

3

Pro

ceed

ing

s o

f th

e M

ar i

ne

Saf

ety

Co

unci

l • M

arc

h• A

pri

l 1993

Newsletter VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 JANUARY 1993

DOD AND DOT SIGN MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR CIVIL USE OF THE GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS)

The U.S. Departments of Defense (DOD) and Transportation (DOT) have signed a Memorandum of Agreement which establishes policies and procedures to ensure an effective working relationship between the Department of Defense and the Department of Transportation regarding the civil use of the Naystar Global Positioning System (GPS).

As described in the background section of the Agreement, national policy prescribes that the standard positioning service (SPS) of the GPS shall be available worldwide for international civil use for the forseeable future. U.S. policy also provides for access to and use of the GPS Precise Positioning Service (PPS) by the U.S. DOD and authorized foreign military users and for selective access to PPS by elements of the U.S. and foreign civil (government and private) sectors.

Among responsibilities assigned to DOD is that of providing DOT a GPS SPS Signal Specification for civil distribution and apprising DOT when the GPS has achieved initial operational capability (as defined in the 1992 FRP) and operation in accordance with the signal specification.

The DOT has agreed to serve as the primary interface within the U.S. Government for all civil GPS matters and to disseminate some GPS status information to military users. Within DOT, the focal point for intermodal issues is the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA/DRT-20) ; the DOT focal point for aviation issues is the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA/ASSD-1) while GPS is in and R&D status (and FAA/AVR-1 after DOD declares GPS operational); the DOT focal point for civil GPS interface is the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG/G-NRN).

Among responsibilities assigned to DOT is that of maintaining a civil information center to make GPS operational status information provided by DOD available to the U.S. and foreign civil user community and to respond to requests for information and concerns submitted by the U.S. and foreign civil user community. The U.S. Coast Guard Civil GPS Information Center has been established as the U.S. government's civil GPS information center.

©1993 RTCM Published by - Radio Technical Commission for ;Vlariiime Services

POST Oi.CE SOX ,9067

WASHINGTON DC X10311

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD PLANS TO DISCONTINUE 500 KHZ DISTRESS WATCHKEEPING AND ALL MORSE CODE SERVICES

IN THE MEDIUM FREQUENCY RADIOTELEGRAPHY BAND

By Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register, and issuance of a Notice to Mariners the United States Coast Guard has the intent to discontinue effective August 1, 1993 watchkeeping on the distress frequency 500 kHz by all U.S. Coast Guard communication stations and cutters as well as all morse code services in the medium frequency radiotelegraphy band.

In its notice the Coast Guard cites the ongoing worldwide implementation of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) and the options within that system for handling distress alerts and maritime safety information.

Questions or comments should be directed to Lieutenant Commander Frank Irr, Telecommunications Operations Division (G-TTO), Office of Command, Control and Communications, U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20593-0001, telephone 202-267-1348, telefax 202-267-4106 or telex 892427 (COASTGUARD WASH).

FCC APPROVES HIGHER POWER FOR 121.5 MHZ HOMING BEACONS INTEGRAL TO 406 MHZ SATELLITE EPIRBS

By Order, and in response to a request by the United States Coast Guard to assist aircraft homing, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued a waiver to Part 80 of its Rules to permit 406 MHz satellite EPIRB's to transmit a homing signal on 121.5 MHz of not less than 25 mw ERP, without a maximum power limit.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION EXTENDS COMMENT PERIOD FOR MAJOR INQUIRY INTO U.S. RULES CONCERNING MARITIME TELECOMMUNICATIONS

By Order, and in response to petitions filed by the U.S. Coast Guard and RTCM, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has extended the comment period to June 1, 1993 and reply comment period to July 15, 1993 for its major NPRM/NOI inquiry reported in the November 1992 issue of the RTCM Newsletter.

RTCM will develop views on the issues through an AdHoc Committee working primarily by correspondence. Work will begin shortly on an initial draft document which will be mailed to AdHoc members, refined through their inputs, and further discussed at the 1993 Annual Assembly Meeting in San Diego. RTCM members are encouraged to participate in the AdHoc Committee by submitting their views in writing to the Future Non-Compulsory Rules Ad Hoc Committee. Those submitting comments will be placed on the mailing list for copies of draft documents as they are develoved. Comments may be transmitted by fax to 202-347-8540 or by mail to RTCM, 655 Fifteenth Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20005.

January 1993 -2- RTCM Newsletter

tanker embargo of the U.S. because tanker owners would not be allowed Into U S. waters without a piece of paper that nobody, repeal nobody, could give them. Flealisticatly, the only source 10 whom tanker owners can turn for COFRs are those P61 dubs whO are members of the International Group. The clubs have made It vary clear that they either can't or won t issue COFRs meeting the pro-posed rules. To make the sorts of changes that the clubs would Ike, would require a change in the law.

The Norwegian and Greek shipown-ers associations have both out forward substantive proposals f Or ending the impasse, but these 100, would require technical changes to OPA.

While the Coast Guard has not issued a final rule on COFRs it nos issued Navigation and Vessel Inspec-tion Circular No. 8-92. This sets forth interim guidelines for the development and review of the Vessel Response Plans that shipownera must tile by February 18, next year.

Owners may well find that they have great difficulty In getting anyone in their right mind to agree to designation as Me 'Qualified Individual- (01) that must be named In the VRP That s because

the 01 position Is already being referred to in some admiralty law dross as the "designated Jailee*.

The 01 must be 'an English-speak-ing, shore-based representative 01 a vessel owner or operator, located in the United States. available on a 24 hour basis, famitiar with implementation of the vessel response plan and trained in his or her responsibilities under the plan.... This person must have full writ• ten authority to Implement the VRP Including "obligating, either directly or throonh prearranged contracts. funds necessary 10 Carry Out all required or directed oil response

Many admiralty law sources feel that, should a clean-up operation go wrong, the 01 could well be the target of not only civil liability suits but possi-ble criminal prosecution. To make mat-ters worse, some P61 sources have signaled that they will not necessarily automatically back the 01's Judgment with up front funds.

Another controversial OPA Issue still to be resolved Is whether the Coast Guard will recommend that the Secre-tary of Transportation ask Congress to approve the mid-deck tanker as equiv-alent to the double hull tanker.

OLAHIBLIUrpAttiii: Witt- Alex 11%4'. ' AWe:44'14AT

Nautical charts change to metric

BY JIM FULLILovE, ED( (

tion in

!I

' One of the best kept secrets in die nation s Capital is oa program that is underway to change all nautical charts from English to metric measurements. While the changeover won't be cOmplete,for a decade or more, nearly:30 metric charti have already been produced. ' The program would still be a secret, at least to me, if I hadn't been asked for cont-inent on the switch by a reporter from a Mid-western newspaper. Allei pleading ignorance, I made i call to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) chart-ing office, which Confirmed that the rumor

• My second Call went to a key staff member of the House subcommittee on Coast Guard and navigation. I asked for a comment about the implications of the metric conversion pm-grnm. Long silence. Apparently, no one at the NOM charting office notified the subcom-rnittee a change was in the works.

When told of the changeover, the aide immediately expressed concern for those coastal mariners, especially fishermen, who are accustomed to reading depths in fathoms. The new readings will be in meters (39.37"). roughly half that of a fathom.

The next call went to the Committee on Nautical Charts and Information, which is part of,the National Research Council. The chairMan wasn't available, but a staffer reported that although there had been talk about future metrication. he wasn't aware a decision had been made to do it.

"We've been working on it since about 1990 and even earlier," says Dennis Carroll of NOAA's charting division. Most of the early work, he says, dealt with charts of areas near the Canadian border. •

The plan is to replace measurements in feet and fathoms with those in meters, decame-ters, kilometers and so on as nautical charts are routinely revised and updated. Carroll says there's no master timetable for convert-ing regions by specific dates. However. the charting office promises to try to "convert charts in logical groupings so that mariners' transits will require minimal shifting between the two measurement systems.-

Latroll says the marching eiders for the change came first from two pieces of federal legislation, the Metric Conversion Act of 1975, and the Omnitnbus Trade and Compet-itiveness Act of 1988. Both laws cite metric weights and ITICIISUrellICtitS as the preferred system and require federal agencies to con-vert their activities as soon as practical.

More recently, though, he points to Execu-tive Order 12770. Issued in mid-1991, the adttlidiStiation actida directi eiteeetiv8 departments and agencies to use the metric system in procurements, grants and "all use of measurement units in agency programs and functions related to trade, industry and commerce."

The Metric version of the charts still relics on nautical miles. But all other designations, from depths and depth curves to bridge clear-ances and tidal information are in metric units. • •

Regarding implications for commercial fishing and other marine operations, Carroll says he is not aware of any assessment that was made regarding potential impacts on

safety. He feels the change shouldn't present

much of a problem to commercial fishermen because, he says, they tend to rely more on their loran than charts. Apparently the Coast Guard navigation office agrees. According to information specialist Frank Parker, the Coast Guard, in reviewing implications of the change, expressed concern only that efforts be made to educate die public.

rerun° technical consultant Jasper Sipes 'says the changeover presents no problems for the company's depth-sounders because, like virtually all electronics sold into the interna-tional market, the gear offers readings in meters as well as feet and fathoms. lie adds that modifications may have to be made on some electronics that are sold into the U.S. market exclusively.

/Jc.. r■-t

Avor q 3

Underwriting Merit Tim Al. Foran. Jr. Tattiro Mann.. Servierc Inc*

Port 1. Part 2 in arm' issue

71,p author is Superioiroilent of Insurance A Claim. wol: Texaco Marine Serviery Inc. in l'ort Arthur, rocas. lir is

alto a InCiPlbee Of the ,tlanrnr birle.i ttrneur Athilory

Recent developments appear to have rendered traditional methods of analytic marine underwriting obsolete. Similar to solving simultaneous equations in algebra, renovations to risk assessment 'mist he accompanied by an effective program of

rating premiums according to merit.

With respect to liability, such obsolescence has been attributed to: excessive jury awards: environmental legislation; and the increasing volume of Iiivolous elating. Antagoni7ed that dear environment and personal well being appear As less

scam valuable. other nations will amplify this condition by

following suit.

Regarding Flu!! and Machinery, reasons have been sighted as

being anything from classification societies' relaxation in duty of care (attributed to several of its own reasons, including competition), to falling freight rates and their resulting budget cuts affecting training, crew rotation:' manning levels, language harriers, and overall operating standards.

The underwriters' assessment must now focus on how efficiently his customer (the shipowner) manages and operates both ehoreside and shipboard. in order to compensate for this erosion of traditional methods. This requires an intimate familiarity that would appear unattainable as underwriters have been observed to have limited expertise in shipping technicalities, concentrating more on the ratio of claims.

Assessment will be reliant on someone within the customer's

organization. The customer's Insurance and Claims manager must be familiar with the function and knowledge of each shipowning department, as well as with the underwriter's

language and concerns. Loss prevention is best served by

coordination between Fleet Management, Risk Management. and Underwriters: not unlike the growing concept of "Unified

Command- in emergency response plans.

The Insurance and Claims manager is the key link in Ibis reciprocating process, serving as both catalyst and interpreter. Utilizing the Insurance and Claims manager. the underwriter can identify the superior, as opposed to inferior. management.

Exemplary performance and management can not only be awarded relative to vessel reemiums, but enhanced by way of premiums charged to the cargo owner. fvflii

,....._ OPA: Train-wrecksrand designated jailees

CONORESSIONAL. staffers who remember the last go round don't relief) the PeetebIlity, but ,t looks

very much as though Congress will have to reopen OPA, the OilPollution Act of 1990. The only question Is whether some needed changes can be slipped rapidly through the Congres-sional process as "technical correc-tions." or whether a whole slew of new. -environmentally-correct- congress per sons will want to reopen the whole can of worms. If they do, there's no telling what might happen. 011 companies, In particular, are fearful that the result could be liability for cargo owners as well as ship operators in the event of a pollution incident.

The big unresolved issue is, of course, Certificates of Financial Responsibility (COFRs). but the requirements for Vessel Response Plans also seem to contain a provi-sion that has the potential for being plainly unworkable.

At press time the Coact Guard had still to publish its final rule on COFRs. But the signs were that. when published. it would look much like the proposed rule. If so. the result could well be Me so-called 'train, wreck" scenario: A sell-imposed

MARINE LOG NO`vEMBE --

•••M14,•••••••■•••• V..., • ••••••••••••.. %.•• ..now

41Peadly.

OSHA UPDATE

When a person is injured aboard a vessel, one of the critical issues to resolve is, "were any laws or regulations vio-lated?" There are basically two federal agencies which may have jurisdiction and two areas of regulations which may apply. Coast Guard regulations may be found in 33 CFR, and 46 CFR. OSI IA regulations are found in 26 CFR.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was created by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. The Act applied to all employ-ment, even if there was only a single em-ployee, performed in a work place in any State, the District of Columbia, the Com-monwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Is-lands, the outer shelf lands, and some other areas.

0511A defines its jurisdictional

boundaries within a state to include its territorial waters which extend dace nau-tical miles from the coastline, except in the Gulf of Alaska where the territorial waters extend three marine leagues or ap-prcrximately nine miles (Seattle Regional

Instruction CPL 2.6A dated August 12, 1992).

The scope of the Act, however, was limited by Section 4(b)(I), (29 USC 653(b)(1)), which states:

Nothing in this chapter shall apply to working conditions of employees with re-spect In which other Federal Agencies .. . exercise statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations af-fecting occupational safety or health.

Thus in the case of vessels, OSHA would have jurisdiction if there is one em-ployee, the vessel was within the geo-graphic area of jurisdiction, and no other federal agency had preempted them under the 4(h)(1) section.

The Coast Guard is another federal agency which may exercise occupational safety and health jurisdiction and thereby preempted OSIIA on vessels. Note that before preemption occurs, another agency not only needs to have jurisdic-tion, but must exercise that jurisdiction.

At this point, several definitions must be understood. An "inspected vessel" means one that the Coast Guard has in-spected and has issued a current Certifi-cate of Inspection. The routine boarding of a vessel by the Coast Guard to assure compliance with certain laws does not make the vessel an "inspected vessel". Common classes of vessel normally "in-spected" arc passenger vessels carrying more than six passengers, tankers, and cargo vessels.

"Uninspected vessels" are defined in 46 USCA 2101(43) as those vessels not subject to inspection and not issued a Certificate of Inspection by the Coast Guard and which are not recreational vessels. Common classes of vessels which are "uninspected" are tugs under 300 GT, inland dredges, inland barges, fishing ves-sels, fish tenders under 500 GT, and fish processors under 5000 GT.

A table setting forth the requirements for inspection is found at the beginning of many of the Subchapters of 46 CFR. One such table is 46 CFR Table 24.05-1(a) found in Subchapter C, Uninspected Ves-sels.

111 older to Oat ily the uiiI.uoty .14

tits of cm 'we vessels, OSI IA and the Coact

Guard entered into a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) published in the Federal Register, Vol 413, No. 54, March IR, 1983. This MOU acknowledged that the Coast Guard had preempted OSI IA with respect to "inspected" vessels. It did not address "uninspected" vessels al-though by their omission, it can be read that this class of vessels remains under OSTIA jurisdiction.

An interesting aside to the issue of who has jurisdiction is the ongoing at-tempt by the Washington state Depart. ment of Labor and Industries (WISIIA) to regulate the Washington "inspected" ferries operated by the Washington De-partment of Transportation. By memo-randum to Jim Aryan, WISIIA Chief Compliance Officer from Thornton Wil-son, Assistant Attorney General, dated April 1, 1980, it was opined that since the Coast Guard regulations did not relate directly to employee safety, the Coast Guard rules did not limit the departme-nt's authority under WISHA. A similar opinion was issued in a memorandum to Dale Check, Director Division of Labor Standards and Safety, State of Alaska from Wilson L. Condon, Attorney Gen-eral, Stale of Alaska, dated February 16, 1982 with regard to that state's owned and operated vessels. However, those opinions were overtaken by the OSHA/-Coast MOU in 1983.

Subsequently, in the State of Washing-ton, the Department of Labor and Indus-tries issued seven violations against the Department of Transportation for failure to comply with WISHA standards relat-ing to asbestos and noise aboard t:teir fer-ries. An appeal was filed before the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals on the basis of lack of jurisdiction by WISHA. By order dated August 1, 1986. the Board ruled that WISIIA had beer preempted by the United States Coast Guard and lacked jurisdiction.

That matter has not yet ended sincr WISIIA is seeking jurisdiction as an em ploycr through the state legislature.

With respect to -uninspected" vessels which agency has occupational and healt1 jurisdiction has not always been clear Early court decisions favored Coas Guard preemption of OSHA even of "uninspected" vessels because the Coax Guard clearly regulated even 'uninspect

Condoned on next pas

is only natural to look away ire*

Fall 1992 • A SINGLE POINT SOURCE OF MARITIME EXPERTS •

— Cron +ke ek Pe.1.4 c–a11 V3

9

OSHA cront.nued ^m i'lz• 61

ably he a sharing of responsibility in shire of the MOU.

In the recent Washington Slate Su. preme Court decision in Inland Bagmen's Union v Department of Trans• portation (#58524-5 September 17, 1992) that court decided that thc Department of Labor and Industries (DLI) could reg- ulate

the Coast Guard inspected and cer-

tificated State owned fcrrics under the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA). Thc DLI had issued scv. cral citations to the Department of Trans-portation for violations of State standards on railings, asbestos danger, excessive noise and lack of safety programs. Thc Department of Transportation success-fully contested the violations before the industrial appeals judge arguing that I since these vessels were inspected by the Coast Guard that OSHA and thus the DLI were preempted. Upon appeal to

vessels. However, the ri.gulaiion of inspected' vessels did not relate to oc-,ational safety and health and, in my mon, these decisions were cicarly in-rect. The one most frcqucntly cited cases

support of the inapplicability of OSIIA Kopczyaski v THE JACOlIFI INF, 2 F.2d 555 (9thr Cir 1984). In

Dranski, a Jones Act seaman was in cd as he attempted to step from [he ,sei .0 the dock. Relying on Curray v,

, Pacific Co , 335 U.S. 520, 69 S,Ct 275 149), the plaintiff in Kopczyniti argued it the jury's determination of his corn-rative fault could not be used to reduce award because his employer was in vi.

ition of various regulations. However, lintiff mistakenly relied upon OSHA ;illation which rxpressly apply only to ngshorinn activitic.s not work per-

rmcd by Jones Act seamec

2nr7yriski 742 F.2d at 559; 29 CFR 15.2(b) specifically exempts crew mcm-:rs from "employee' category. Had aintiff used thc proper regulation, 29 FR 1910, the result of his claim would ,ry likely have been different as indi-cted by subsequent casts. Thus, oritrvisski is confined to the fact that SHA longshoring regulations do not ,ply to Jones Act seamen.

Several subsequent decisions have ipported the view that OSI IA's jurisdic-on over "uninspected" vessels has not ecn preempted. In Donovan vArcl Star iarineSenticeJztc, 739 F.2d 774 (2nd ir 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1003 112 ISIIC 13041(1985), it was held that )SHA possessed statutory authority to :gulate the working conditions of em-loyees aboard uninspectcd vessels." The Ise involved noise hazards on tugs. As :cently as July 13, 1992, OSHA has is. ucd citations on tugs for noise, lack of uards, obstruction of passageways, and Aced exit doors (OSHA Bellevue, WA nspection #109421685 of Crowley In-ader class tugs).

lallingiactinnofilorialk12zadging :0„, 783 F2d 1526 (11th Cir 1986), Rch lenicd 790 F.2d 688, Cert denied, 109 1.Ct 271 (1987) the court said, "the issues of jurisdiction] turn on difference be-wcen "inspected" and "uninspectcd" vcs-cls. . We conclude that the Coast 3uard's regulation of safety aboard unin-pected vessels is so circumscribed that it lots not preempt OSHA's jurisdiction..."

,%t oa applies to lishing indu'ry %essels is art unreported Alaskan case. HAL=

Ultra-Alaska. CASC No. 1KO-81.491Civ, , Filed in the Superior Cowl fur the State of Alaska, Third Judicial Dis-trict at Kodiak. The case involved an in-jured party who worked on the processing line of the "uninspected" fish processing barge NEPTUNE. In a well reasoned de-cision dated April I I, 1985, "the court therefore finds that OSIIA Regulations are applicable to this matter.'

With respect to fishing industry ves-sels, Public Law 100.24 1II.R. 18411 en-acted September 9, 1988 has changed jurisdiction with respect to sonic of these vessels. Discussions with Coast Guard personnel who had a hand in drafting the Coast Guard regulations indicate that it was not their intent to preempt OSIIA in

OSHA POSSESSES

STATUTORY

AUTHORITY TO

REGULATE THE

WORKING

CONDITIONS

ABOARD

UNINSPECTED

VESSELS

the factory areas of processing vessels. Meetings were held between OSHA and the Coast Guard to hammer out another MOU relating to preemption on Fishing industry vessels. !rowel/cr. because of the press of other more important issues, it is not anticipated that the MOU will be forth coming in the immediate future.

The fishing industry regulations prom-ulgated under this Act were published in the Federal Register on August 14, 1991 as 46 CFR Part 28. This Part falls in Sub-chapter C, Uninspccted Vessels.

It is clear that the "inspected" - "unin-spected" vessel classification is no longer the dividing line between Coast Guard and OSHA authority. Although a new MOU has not been published, OSIIA's Seattle Regional Administrator has pub-lished guidelines with respect to the divi-sion of jurisdiction (Seattle Regional Instruction CPL 2.6A). The division be-tween OSHA jurisdiction and Coast

ltestr.d vessel will slcpciitl uu whether the lia/mil or condition is regulated by the Coast Guard in 46 Cut 1,1 If it is. OSI IA is preempted. If not, OSIIA continues 10 assert jurisdiction. This is an unusual ap-proach and I know of no other area in which OSIIA has shared jurisdiction within the same environmental area or surroundings. Sce Southern Ry Co 't Occupational Saf & H Review Comm 539 F.2d 335 (1976) and szakrazacifig Transportation Cp v Usux 539 F.2d 386 (1976). The applicability of OSI IA au-thority on processing vessels may be questioned in the courts. If it is, the out-come will be reported in Maritime & En-vironmental Consultants newsletter, the EXPERT. Those interested in a discus-sion of the preemption issue with respect to the Commercial Fishing Industry Ves-sel Safety Act of 1988 may wish to read

cries Inc (15 OSIIC 1699) in which the Commission upheld the authority of OSHA over fishing and processing ves-sels. However, at the time this decision was issued, the Coast Guard had not promulgated regulations under the Act.

The Coast Guard has not published any guidelines on the division of authority between them and OSIIA in thc fishing industry. Discussions with Coast Guard headquarters indicate that a Memoran-dum of Understanding between thc two agencies on this issue will not be forth-coming in the immediate future.

Activities of longshoremen and steve-dores, who are not crew members on in-spected vessels, are under OS/IA jurisdiction although if an injury results from a failure of ship's equipment, both agencies may have jurisdiction. While this has always been the accepted practice be-tween thc two agencies, a new twist has recently been added. OSHA recently is-sued a citation against Samson Tug & Barge when longshoremen were observed operating a fork lift on a Coast Guard in-spected Samson barge. They said mea-sures had not been taken to prevent the lift truck from rolling off the barge. The railing consisting of pipe stanchions and a single strand of wire was deemed inade-quate. Samson is contesting the citation on the basis that the Coast Guard has preempted OSHA on inspected barges [refer to the MOU1. Resolution of thc conflict is expected shortly and will prob-

Continued on rage 8

Superior Court, the decision was reversed holding that federal law did not preempt the regulation of the ferries by the state. Upon further appeal directly to the Su-preme Court, the decision of the Superior Court was upheld. The court held that there must be an implicit intent to pre-empt in order for the federal government to preempt the entire field of maritime safety. Upon finding there was none, the court then went on to see if there was an actual conflict between Coast Guard reg-ulations and WISHA regulations in_re-gard to the specific citations Finding none, the court held, 'that federal law does not preempt Washington worker safety laws aboard the Washington state ferries.'

In summary, with the exception of the fishing industry vessels, OSHA has been preempted by the Coast Guard on In-spected" vessels but retains jurisdiction

r--- on uninspected vessels within the territo-rial waters of the states and territories, On fishing industry vessels, each agency has assc•ted jurisdiction over some of the vessels. OSHA is clearly preempted in those areas regulated under 46 CFR 28. However, the extent of preemption may go further.

• A SINGLE POINT SOURCE OF MARITIME EXPERTS • Fall 1992

Peak 2 vF Z on OS H4

Pergrisula Malaysia

I vriso.vonsful alladl

;:,t44,1LoCstIons of.pkate attacks.

South China Su

A Natuna Islands

4 Anambas 5 istands

Sumatra

Saseee i4A

• 311+<33 X neamit 4.4

• 2 Meets X I, nave. eve

4 .w.4.4 2 mucks I rorromA.4 .41 I

X 3 %womb/Slacks

st 4 racks :et* ememe4A1 an,

eeeeeenee

tit 2 iiumiski aneces

Locations of pirate attacks

Saran China Sea

X sucusshe sucks

unsuconski ale* 2 Is a sacks X meow no

wymessaY1

CD 2 &Hula X it wea.444 anI

4 I ovvsamil est Warty

1114.44410.1. $

X 3 successlul 3.1303 • to 4 watts X 11 a...3.•/.

uovsaaM

"IC 2 successhi sucks

Tcan4/1 A s 4

Nts jamisavia

4 Ft, 5

Axvnislarr

Sa.nasSMBA

Peringia Malaysa

4

Susan

6 thew

7

lingo/4090390

Bo hate Strall

Pirate Attacks Spoiling South-east Asia's Image "rhe rising ineldenis of piracy

in South-east Asian waters is

spoiling the region's image In inlet national shipping circles.

Tile nit.tcy problem in the reglor, is far mote serious than estimated pi eviously. with more than 200 cases reported last year.

A special report released by I he United Kingdom-based International Maritime Bureau (Imn) has identified the waters stretching from the northern tip of Sumatra through the Malacca and Singapore Straits. Philip Channel and beyond as Ihe single most dangerous stretch of water Internationally.

According In IME3. the region's waters have file iii0S1 concentrated incidence of piracy attacks in the world. While they may not involve a great deal of money, they pose a great potential

for disaster should a collision or grounding occur.

111 %,'-'1112. 1 '""' • 1,v incal low eniniceni,-iit agencies.

One gniitlinn. the repro I said than while sea pall ols ml I lir may deter attacks. the tin usi iii efforts shmild he out hurl.

SAO A Jardine Pacific Business

From accounts of the various attacks. the report said in most. cases the average raid look about 30 minutes and the average haul from the ship's sale was about US$7.000. hue report also focussed on the problems of piracy in the South China Sea and In partIcular.on the Increased number of attacks In the Singapore Straits. It included an annex describing attacks on more than 100 ships in a 32-KM stretch of the Philip Channel. the southern half of the waterway between Singapore and Indonesia. Ihe pirates' favourite stretch of water.

It also Identified the lack of comprehensive and consistent

reports of attacks as a major

Al111014,91 011C1Irt'S arc get dally ennimilted allnai. the pit airs themselves lutist have a slime base. With ellorls coneenliaiNI on gathering intelligctice milt before and after an attack. II shrntld be possible to catch criminals in possession of

property stolen from vessels. Other suggestions inchttle closed-circuit television cameras

installed on all ships - trained on the safe - to help Identify the pirates.

IMB will launch an anti-piracy centre in Malaysia. in September. to u-n-ordinate Intelligence and reporting of piracy Incidents and to disseminate this to the vat inns law enforcement agencies ra ted

ship-owning bodies.,

c\3 Special task Force to Fight Piracy

si•mi S::E: ASIATt

A Special task force will be set

up by the London based International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to halt the surge of piracy in South-East

Asian waters.

The proposed task force will comprise representatives from Malaysia. Singapore and Indonesia.

The task force will recommend specific navigational techniques

and precautions to be taken by crew, shipping companies. regional governments and port authority to enforce law and order on the high

seas.

The IMO said piracy problems warrant draconian measure to prevent and suppress them. Rescue teams must cooperate and

coordinate all moves with the respective authorities craking down

on pirates. The teams must also recommend the use of Ininarsat satellite communications.

Past efforts to contain the piracy

problem in South-East Asian

region were hampered by political

sensitiveness and jurisdical concerns. A number of proposals

have been tossed about but no concrete solution has emerged so

far.

Newsletter OCI 2 0 1992

VOLUME 11, NUMBER 8 SEPTEMBER 1992

FRP UPDATE - WHAT TO EXPECT IN THE 1992 U.S. FEDERAL RADIONAVIGATION PLAN

In a recent briefing on the draft 1992 U.S. Federal Radionavigation Plan as it has been developed to this point, highlights of interest to the maritime community included:

o For the Global Positioning System: • Initial Operating Capability (IOC) will be attained when 24 GPS satellites (Block I/II/IIA) are operating in their assigned orbits and are available for navigation. This is planned to occur in mid-1993. • U.S. Coast Guard and FAA will notify civil users when the system

is approved for navigation. • Standard Positioning Service (SPS) will be available at IOC to all users worldwide without direct charge. SPS will provide horizontal accuracy within 100 meters (2drms, 95%) and 300 meters (99.99% probability) and vertical accuracy within 140 meters (2

C

sigma) and timing accuracy within 340ns (95% probability).

o For Maritime Differential GPS (DGPS): • U.S. Coast Guard plans to provide DGPS service, free of charge,

for harbor/harbor approach phase of maritime navigation utilizing maritime radiobeacons to transmit differential corrections. • USCG DGPS will be operational by 1996 with an accuracy better than 10 meters 2drms.

o For Omega: • U.S. does not expect to terminate Omega operations before the

year 2005 (also depends on partner nation agreements). • Operation after 2005 depends on requirements not met by other systems.

o For Loran-C: • To remain part of radionavigation mix through 2015.

o For Transit: • To terminate and discontinue system operation in December 1996.

o For Radiobeacons: • Differential GPS corrections, to be carried by some maritime radiobeacons; non-DGPS beacons may phase-out after 2000.

01992 RTCM

Published by - Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services 0057 OFC,CE BOX ,906? ,u•SNONCON 0 C 20036

U.S. SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION SUGGESTS EXPEDITIOUS ACTION TO CHANGE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934

In a letter to the Chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation has noted that the U.S. Communications Act of 1934 contains requirements that are inconsistent with the provisions of the 1988 Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) Amendments to the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea; that the FCC rulemaking action implementing the Amendments in the United States did not indicate plans for seeking an amendment to the Communications Act; and that the Secretary of Transportation supports FCC initiatives to reform expeditiously the Communications Act of 1934.

Copies of the letter are available to RTCM members on request to the RTCM Office by facsimile to 202-347-8540, by telephone to 202-639-4006 or by mail to the address listed on this Newsletter. Request Document ALFA JULIETT ALFA.

FCC AMENDS RULES TO PERMIT USE OF FACSIMILE AND DATA EMISSIONS ON MARINE PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE CHANNELS IN THE 156-162 MHZ BAND

By Report and Order (R&O) the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has amended Part 80 of the Commissions Rules (47 CFR 80) to permit the use of facsimile and data communications on marine public correspondence channels in the 156-162 MHz band (marine VHF) for communications between public coast stations and ship stations. The amendment is substantially in conformance with the Notice of Proposed Rule Making released in October 1991 and reported in the RTCM Newsletter previously.

The rule changes permit the use of the additional communication modes under existing ship or coast station licenses provided mutual arrangements have been made between licensees. Transmitters type accepted before January 1, 1994 for G3E emissions under Part 80 of the Commission's Rules will be authorized to transmit F2C, F3C, F1D and F2D emissions indefinitely without modification of type acceptance. Transmitters type accepted after January 1, 1994 will be authorized to use F2C, F3C, F1D and F2D emissions only if they are type accepted for those emissions.under Part 80 of the Commission's Rules (47 CFR 80).

Copies of the Report and Order are available to RTCM members on request to the RTCM Office by facsimile to 202-347-8540, by telephone to 202-639-4006 or by mail to the address listed on this Newsletter. Request Document ALFA JULIETT BRAVO.

ARE YOU A 1993 RTCM ASSEMBLY MEETING EXHIBITOR?

To have your listing included in the 1993 RTCM Assembly Meeting Program, deadline for receipt of Exhibitor Registration Forms by RTCM is October 30, 1992. If you did not receive exhibitor registration packet, fax request to RTCM at 202-347-8540.

September 1992 -2- RTCM Newsletter

AUG I9S2

THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPCRTATIOD

icAma ,

'ITE FILE uPtCA wASNINGTOPI, D.C. 2000

LE

CERTIFIED TRUE COP

The Honorable Alfred Sikes Chairman Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554

Dear Mr. Chairman:

As a component of the Administration's effort to develop a new maritime policy, we have identified laws and regulations that inhibit U.S. ship operators' ability to compete effectively with foreign-flag ships. The Communications Act of 1934 contains requirements that are inconsistent with the provisions of the 1988 Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS)' Amendments to the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea effective February 1, 1992.

Under new regulations, the option of using duplicate equipment and/or shipboard maintenance in place of a radio officer would 1.)e accepted as adequate for compliance with GMDSS; however, ships that carry radiotelegraphy equipment must continue to carry radio officers until the Communications Act is amended. U.S. ships that meet the GMDSS technical criteria are nevertheless subject to additional requirements that do not apply to foreign-flag ships implementing GMDSS. Turthermors, the incentive to invest in a safer communications system is essentially eliminated if the operator must continue to comply with outdated statutory requirements. The notice published in March 1992 did not indicate what plan your agency may have for seeking an amendment to the Communications Act of 1934.

As you determine your course of action, I want you to know I support initiatives taken by FCC to reform expeditiously the 1934 Act to permit U.S. ship operators to use the options available under GMDSS.

Sincerely,

Original sl(F.ed by Andrew H. Card, Jr.

Andrew H. Card, Jr.

cypeci in 10/abd per SIO DO edits 8/5/92

Emir gully 15:2 1 tupi

rfiT141 1?...qwtt.i IM-Ii-9-'-

;141E4 ,115-gIil ;1E0411

WIF2-3 .=.= -''

Mil4 "Riingli !T-,1.7.2 EEi...

g;244 RgE'sVit 40;',30- gWttEi i.laqrs: g4F4?iii

lazTa sl r.Ta 1A114."

:IT: =15i; ::i1:::: Illill 077rF--1-

;:,!,ls-1..

as 110— >E - It 69z1%1 7718 ic F; gl;.!1 *!-R.2° T

1....4 Cg"1 .:-.:-.tisYg itill! cl.W.R. - twt--9, 1 El RO ili. n§ tg" 9.14Ar aia.a issiwi

c 'A , , gm", 3;.F.2 A r.-=aom_• ,,,.

::45i84%; :41, 2i " :A fn:)'

•o0 . 08' 2 S -61%3 _„. s.-11.5111s,

Iiii

on Omr,l' 5'9. 5- 1Z -55..a. ;4... -;-.3 gi. at 497 PIE al'2.1 FIHE39 T:;Et gtic.

a - 81 T05 a 4 4.al l!5.. s'iligig ITO -3..*@ -s -ew

la;ns',2,52E... q.. 2&& ,..t..

7A=';'s.qhii.

1 .i '4'

iim.0.9,e EA=. I

tfir -I P•T' ilritd = 411

..--

g g --N8 x

4En-,-“n im.o, Eg- P-.511 F—mT,T. a.4 3 0. eos 3„g, .. -...„. sJi1 A.Riisa Et-94i '04 'rel I'll

gi11 rilt ili,,, t Mit q §1 ;o.,°

: ;0 10gx 75 Mac,;..cn o - ft 2.....,0 1.24;:s sii2,

'Ili8gu:o.g. 4 ' ; Ta m W4=i E. F•ig g l§,:! Ni [ti qi=ci. w o g. Q-OT Z23. 9 2.-3 F.iv

$ -,3 al>"0 ,111; ;1445.W7; git i g.tt ESP'S

USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS LiL' MER(.:1141t,.

Commandant Note 13722 reitera':as and clarifies Coast Guard pplicy concerning those who test positive for dangerous drugs. The statute (46 USC 7704) requires the administrative law judge (ALJ) to permanently revoke the seaman's papers for those found to have used dangerous drugs. By regulation, failing a drug test leads to the presumption of use.

The only exception to this revocation is the case where the seaman can show cure. Criteria for showing cure are being established in case law, the most recent being Commandant Decision on Appeal No. 2535 (SWEENEY).

The Coast Guard maintains an active campaign against the use of dangerous drugs in the merchant marine. 1i sanction of REVOCATION will be pursued by Investigating Officers prosecuting dangerous- ftrug-usq cases before the ALJ.

Voluntary deposits of licenses and documents will not be accepted. The mariner faced with a failed drug test has two options: 1) voluntary permanent surrender of the document, or 2) be charged to a hearing before an ALJ. Again, should the ALJ find the charges PROVED, his only option under law is to revoke the document unless the holder provides satisfactory proof that

he is cured. '

Good faith deposits, which are used by the mariner to guarantee his appearance at the hearing, will continue to be accepted. Such agreements are made only after the seaman has been charged to a hearing.

Once a document is surrendered or revoked the only chance a merchant seaman has to obtain a new document would be to apply to the Commandant for administrative clemency. There are time limitations and application procedures which must be met before a clemency board is convened. Details are contained in 46 CFR Part 5, Subpart L.

Marine employers, unions, charterboat associations, etc. are urged to make this article available to all merchant seamen and to emphasize that drug use is incompatible with service in the merchant marine and will ultimately lead to loss of employment in this industry.

PRE-EMPLOYMENT DRUG TESTING REQUIREMENTS

Persons who have passed a pre-employment test for his current marine employer or another marine employer, or a periodic test for dangerous drugs, within the previous six months are not required to undergo pre-employment testing again within that period. Persons who have been subject to a random drug testing program meeting the criteria under this regulation during the previous 12 months, have not failed a chemical test for dangerous drugs, and have not refused to participate in required chemical tests are also not required to undergo pre-employment testing.

The only exception to random drug testing requirements is for those individuals not having any duties or functions related to the safe operation of the vessel. With the nature of uninspected passenger vessel operations it is virtually impossible for a mate not to have some effect upon the vessel's safe operation. This means that if a mate does, or is ever likely to do, as much as mind the helm while the operator leaves to use the head, handle a mooring line while docking or undocking, or assist or instruct a passenger in the event of an emergency, that mate is required t,-) be subject to random drug testing for the duration of his employment aboard.

Masters operating a vessel with mates or crew not in compliance with regulations for chemical testing as above are subject to administrative action against their licenses.

5r4

t4).

De

cenz

er-

Jo

O - 3 It T ; % >",; .r6.28 ni 2 r4, 4 I;

5

ya3u8 3 Et t5 cl.31-,82 107.,03§4•Zsot2.2722,

2 1; O*-aa , •r. "

• ,

2; 0,18,1 11 ,4d6L-r ...go C 2F, • n,

•

0 f 3 c 9 • eLL 3.• - .9, & 2 E 5 o • .0 .?.; PNr-- T., ; 3 a It

in 5 r"`"--42.=. 7 = 3 2 .1 g g 4 e E 7„,' 3 ia2 5. , a,t535518.0.13`7§.-ci450NS3'''''"' 11;1;17,; 3Vact,22"14'0, c r a- 0 2 c. 24 5 . r,2 ":=0•=

▪

" ° 7, 4 .67, 8 „, S r; g 0 ... 3 z 3 - „

-t ••-2 ' 2̂ :t g 4 14 86' t.gE> - •-5 ;=2 .8.3tgCg 8-.1. " E k :4.22 PS M= = .."',22 a 5.* Y.

etE a.5. • gi;r8-2,a.trog -.,11.1 aggtj 't :-. =. 1;`:..1 = 31 1" §iTt `"E4.12- 3.8.1138.;:iig!.- 43gE3 c a rg2o.S-E41'ar- .N22c.A.-.. x F,E84,,S.5ot7;2.744

• 1-gdI ne2 8 t• s ■A g•sg .dgt2 .,'.4 21tra -3 g 3 r

$.

e - a .22 g .0 0 •ss•

75 3 I. ; .8 'Ts I 9 2 ° 81,8;4.22 , Z.;.")2 4 gtv..141: e g.E="5° g <., 740 g .05a S.8.t<2p 0'3 2 5.2.91; .1;230C

• 10-.2 5 . 72.•• „ s. 4 -0' Q' -2,,c ra

?.-.K71,....g.11,!,e F>s - z-..31,14., „ e - (43 - 3 . = 8 1, 3 „ -9 2

;1 El E R < 122z . 37' e 6; %.2 7,- r..S .g= 2- - .s i E ` rEE8Ei-§-g 4-grig 2 f... = Yrs g

•

>.;°Et

n

E°m

5 g ter ; ra=a7i5,:gril=t<2:1111

' ,,t OW 5 5 0c9'74'-*-0 °° ft ri f.' ..°"4 1,1"; .40 §-5",., 11.1 1111 ; 1 i t.,`.5 8 rig -° '-a ....1 " . -,, -`4 g' g 3 -e. a ',-; - :a '5. g § 0"' 't 5 " g " a " a a 3 1 .5 .,-; - ..! . t ? c0 .;a= = „,„.,: ...,,,); 2 .0 ... ; •E u .5. 0 -9 a• r 2, .10 0 ,oz.t., .5,,,,.., ,1, . g 4 3-E , s_0_„., 3. e s_ c ,c . ,..;3 = 2 0 217i m .1.E.gt1<:. ?,1 te:::' 8 .-garix E .5 '4. i q is t 73 ! 19 -ii 13'. 6 3t,l4c2,a94r,gr:L ..,,; ".'0 -15 4:40.r."6-c.i'd .24.-" 3 011'a 1•4'.gI Zg.g I 11.L12-153611ii ii.11!-:.C g "SitiiV -4 1g g 23 r•'''?" E g x itg g.1- a a 1Iw i 5 -! , u -1 71 El -2 =3 114.' 1 El 8 1'-'-il 1 'AI 3 i 1..,-, .9k -8. 1 .8..:12 .8 ag$18.:11:5 1 3 , 1 T' : c .4 !%2 014 3 ci: 24 i .4 0 4, - -5c5.9 -g .c >, c -2 3 a = Er 0 e 3 .4. 44 3 .z1 „ .....7121.. „a - . X.,11r ...,1s§;- 4 1 2 -0

e l 84°.4 lr57:Eso Et3e ' g 3..

0 .g , c a 1 r- , , . g . , 4 5.1c2 Mt, '... 3 ..k..?*S-s,t ,,,_,, z. -.. ; .c t

cilla.0 ,Lgt5-g_- E'''''.ito N 8 5.2 2 IS 1,4 X ". ; . ,..; - = .-. u 1 El.,. ..siz-a iiit;_61.; t t„, t 1 , 9 „, ..; r. I. .A.. aa 8 E 1 4 ,... 4 . 5 .4 e .e. # E60-.=-'3-<1..Eli 14 35..K.E.S= ,-'51-;13`a.5'1 a* _ u,„ullat• •.,,,‘ C.)/. Q.gl g 7,-„i ITE 2 tt esa

. 003-g.3L-1:'0".‹ ' .;',5:41E-52ii;it ..g re . 3 . 'E'S"a a c1. 8

tg3::,it.':>.-,511,-;E 1...:"ig-,-,gtsii .̀t ., "3 i;41 "' i i" ..,, .... Ii. -6 r, .... . .4* 13-7-7, -g-0o ta' .4-0.6 .44 _54 3•, a 8

. a 3 3 1 1 0114 a

41 11. 7Ti.127°41

-at'it-34" IS1gP 1114111!

1" 8 5 : 0b E '6 MUUI . t- 2

!II Wili!gl ! !N3

8.1,

2 i%':°gAgigf 042:84e1A 1 131

1,1 0̀e 1"-r, „.s c..)4 2wu 8 7,- E.-tarolds

t.5 e Po

74-ST, ''st, g8541iP0

il 14y. n

q., ts s ,oli ,„ tftli2itg aas.-69.-,A. 0 ....;-d ..1gLIZ u.at '62" = 1.. a t : .F ,,! PtE2itit'' ;1ig 81 ': i''="2i1C-aith. gi'4yt.gai'Ae:r ..,J;u712-2. >, gg,

15.Q, atEl4 1g 41 Eli; ,efl

■

sw 151s.2g 4•T'S.; Xv=00 a1.4ss-E

.234 ItiLgia, aiii -5.225'= 242.

li;1 -4t8.40 ir!li 2S11"

goso ,g-,gi;gi!g 4E 1°2 O

3

0

0 U 0 0

Decem

ber-

Janua

ry 1

W3

Litt

Equip

men

r 95

11

• 2 2

..?4•5 154. i4

11 2-14 s 2[2 .

z 5 5 z 2 6 .2

1 2 1 t ); - livii7 f:2 sai'il, E s y7Egif,< 39' ."?."'a il.g

z 8,1 t_ 8 L. - t r I 2A 2; t1.517‘ :.ttg

s i ,..,..is-75.!..>"2.412C 02 ; z , .° - .:j ' B. m _ u 04 5; 1 ,.1 .2, Ai 6., e .08

igg ;132tA,-;', 7fg .„, .. 1 ..,i 2 -,:..-.51'7,u, ,41 '._.- =1 i' g es 5.g e t r -,2 v .. „,...., = g4sE-=,-... 7' ' 2 - --. = . S8. P. al si '-j-i. 2 ti41,t2 9 ' A ? - Y• , , "1., :; ?! -:-. t,, -2. 5 .?, •, •■•.; t, 3 5 ''' a. :••• ft;17g1$2“3,-,z- 4."':141 4 a ,... u • 4 3 T.r'.477, .',. (4,

•

-... - - _ ..._ -,..!.., i 3 F

07;1: ,st.,":48 1 '''''-in`,t, ;3• :A.•?•g2 z - 1 ..:,

gg gir1,41- ."I cf,c 52-',..0 - ...-. 2 1 t A=4‹ 0. i .E.... •3 E.-..752t22.2 2' 2-3 4f.ilh-'s 8f, .,2.7.;i:4 0 13.1z 5 2 i 11,.=;gs 4-- 4.,•.: R: l.', g , 5 .;. ':ii g2'=-3e8g1'.-Ptiii§a51-42E'E$=t1.;M5

.eigO l g ..!0;,A.Alig:'ilgg4 ■78qc./-g 1,facrEsgs g=e,?,:=>,' 2 4 . i 2' 8.1 i - 7.1 E ' . 4 7. ; = z il z • 2

2182C a 57, y 3 2 f, d >. 2 ti

10=' ..84 glso 112 4:82-f.',5t 3 '58 E r' := - 3 121

4.59 6;1-1°' 4 r2e=1, " t551g 3.tigal4iti 1.?:!.11 :„5-4 tgl

•

• F N 1 4:1 - § u 7.; 8i. c .= .1 5.1tagi

v

▪

e

C

41 ,N - a , - 2 -8 0 g '50:57..);‘.2 6 0 r..1

•

.0 ° 8 7 - a .4zlg IEVTI

01., 2 -0 L.' re 24'1 2 LiI > 9 44'

, I E Q .2 :x" cLar, 8*. ; u FIS 5 • .7. ?.• >. 0 7 u .11.:1 1 §1•=0 i .51-., 13.,•_;.%

•

' 211 3 i1 35gti CO u ̀4 f • u 2. 2 3 7, 1

41:1141:41.1s4*li1021A1731gL91!;7'8§.:Ii E e, 0. r 4 : ; u= t, • ; •222=

6-1,=2 "1Zg i'34:c.ig`• -gm•°•1 83_5 .1-:9.6"- §IsIs'ggsEg"101..s..4 - . ..422.°2 e2

Wo

rk W

ith

Yo

ur

Bro

ker

Cu

nta

me3

(m

pag

e 95

-*

1. THE BELOW LISTED RADIOBEACCNS HAVE BEEN MODIFIED TO TRANSMIT EXPERIMENTAL DIFFERENTIAL GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (DGPS) CORRECTIONS. PORTSMOUTH HARBOR, NH N43 04.20, W70 42.50 MONTAUK POINT, NY N41 04.03, W71 51.64 CAPE HENLOPEN, DE N38 47.15, W75 05.90 CAPE HENRY, VA N36 55.58, W76 00.45 GALVESTON, TX N29 19.73, W94 44.1 ARANSAS PASS, TX N27 50.30, W97 03.54 WHITEFISH POINT, MI N46 46.27, W84 57.45

THE CARRIER OF THESE RADIOBEACONS IS MODULATED WITH A GPS CORRECTION (DIFFERENTIAL) SIGNAL, WHICH MAY BE USED TO GREATLY IMPROVE THE ACCURACY OF GPS. MARINERS SHOULD SEE NO DEGRADATION IN THE USABILITY OF THE RADIOBEACON SIGNAL FOR DIRECTION FINDING, ALTHOUGH A WARBLING OF THE IDENTIFICATION TONE MAY BE NOTICED. AVIATORS SHOULD BE CAUTIONED THAT SOME DIRECTION FINDING EQUIPMENT USED ABOARD AIRCRAFT, MAY NOT OPERATE PROPERLY WITH DGPS-MODIFIED RADIOBEACONS. 2. COAST GUARD DGPS CORRECTIONS ARE BEING BROADCAST TO TEST AND EVALUATE VARIOUS EQUIPMENT CONFIGURATIONS. IN FEBRUARY 1993, THE BROADCAST BIT RATE OF THE FIRST SIX SITES LISTED IN PARA ONE WILL BE CHANGEDFROM 50 BITS PER SECOND TO 100 BITS PER SECOND. WHITEFISH POINT MICHIGAN HAS BEEN BROADCASTING AT 100 BITS PER SECOND SINCE THE DGPS MODIFICATIONS WERE INSTALLED. 3. SOME DGPS USER RECEIVERS MAY REQUIRE REPROGRAMMING OR ADJUSTMENTS TO ACCOMODATE THE CHANGED BIT RATE. THIS MAY REQUIRE CONSULTING TECHNICAL MANUALS OR RECEIVER MANUFACTURERS. 4. USE NOTICES TO AIRMEN (NOTAMS) AND NOTICES TO MARINERS (NTMS) TO NOTIFY APPROPRIATE COGNIZANT AUTHORITIES AND USERS, INCLUDING FAA REGIONAL OFFICES. AS WITH THE BASIC GPS, DGPS IS STILL EXPERIMENTAL AND IS CURRENTLY A USE AT YOUR OWN RISK SERVICE. 5. CURRENT STATUS OF DGPS BROADCASTS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE COAST GUARD GPS INFORMATION CENTER (GPSIC) AT (703)-866-3806.

Navy Utilizes CD-ROM Technology For Hazardous Material Control/Disposal

As far as hazardous wastes and computers are con-cerned, the U.S. Navy has seen the future and it is in compact disks. The Navy has a CD-ROM on hazardous material control and management sent to more than 7,000 military, government, and commercial sites, ac-cording to a report in Computer Digest.

The H MC&M CD-ROM is popular, according to Navy officials, and has spawned other projects for the Navy—including a medical disposal instruction (CD-ROM developed at the request of the U.S. Army. This request, and other services, come from the Naval Compu-ter and Telecommunications Area Master Station (At-lantic), Norfolk, Virginia.

The hazardous material control CD-ROM system con-tains information required for safe and legal procure-ment, distribution, storage, use, and disposal of hazard-ous materials needed in daily operations of Navy com-mands. NCTAMSLANT Team Leader Lexine Langley described why CD-ROMs are a good fit for the Navy: "When you're on a ship you can't just pick up the phone and call somebody." The cornerstone of the H MC&M CD-ROM is the Hazardous Material Information Sys-tem, which is the Department of Defense repository of material safety data sheet information. The program also contains the ships hazardous material list, used to main-tain an inventory of onboard chemicals and hazardous substances. /sti

/1-i °I

BY TONY SEIDEMAN

Extra Safety Measures `g s afety" is taking on a new meaning

for members of the marine commu-nity as state and local regulatory

authorities increasingly treat their industry just like any other. For that reason, work-boat builders and operators will need to invest in new technology and training.

"The maritime industry, of course, has always had safety, health and environmental problems," said Frank Parker, vice president of operations at Environmental Technolo-gies Inc., a Magnolia, Texas-based supplier of health and safety equipment. "What's happening now, though, is that the Coast Guard has begun taking a more aggressive position, and so are the maritime industry's customers."

As a result, Parker said members of the marine sector are "looking for the same kind of services we provide to petrochemi-cal plants and manufacturing plants."

Workboat operators and their suppliers cite three areas where the action is heaviest: • Confined spaces. Regulations just pub-

lished by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration will force compa- nies to spend an estimated $200 million a year on a variety of equipment, from breathing apparatuses to devices that test compressors feeding air to workers in enclosed spaces.

• Noise control. Regulatory pressure is aimed at reducing onboard noise. In practice. this is being accomplished at both the design stage and by retrofitting existing vessels with materials that dead-en sound.

• Injury-prevention. Preventing worker injuries with equipment and training has become a priority as marine insurance rates continue to soar.

Confined-space concerns Many or the most sophisticated and

costliest safety devices manufactured today are an outgrowth of regulations governing work performed in confined spaces and handling benzene. a known carcinogen.

Recognizing a hazard existed. OSHA issued stringent new rules concerning con-fined spaces (Regulation IQ (0. Section 146)

spuNsoi4 ri.RNA I I( V%: Al/10\14()A I ■110

on Jan. 14. OSHA estimates its confined-space rules will prevent 54 fatalities yearly and save a significant number of workdays lost to illness. The maritime industry got a bit of a break; rules directly relating to it won't be official for a few months. But thcy' re corning.

What will spur the purchase of new equipment is the regulation's requirement for increased monitoring of enclosed spaces. Available products measure the presence of potentially toxic gases or explo-sive contaminants.

"Business is outstanding," said Suzanne Khan, marketing communications analyst for Gas Tech Inc. The Newark, Calif., com- pany's most popular unit for marine use is the Model 432000. The 8-lb. detector mon- itors four types of gases, is equipped with an internal sample-drawing pump, operates via two controls and verifies at regular intervals that the unit is working properly.

The company's Model GX-86 also moni-tors four gases. It attaches to the user's belt and features a detachable sensor head. Gas Tech's four-model Safe T Mate line was designed for extreme portability, being roughly the size of a cassette-player. Prices range from $945 to $2,100.

Another manufacturer is BioSystems Inc., Middlefield, Conn. "Our instruments are used for monitoring a lack of oxygen or excess oxygen in an area," said BioSystems Product Manager Jeff Emond. The devices also alert users to LEL (lower explosion limit) conditions and detect the presence of nine different toxic gases. Among them are carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, ammo-nia, chlorine and nitrogen oxides.

BioSystems' units sell for between $1,000 and $2,500, depending on their ruggedness and the options a customer chooses. The firm's most maritime-oriented product is the Cannonball II, designed for outdoor use. The company also offers the PhD. a portable unit that monitors four gases simultaneously.

Tony Seidman is a freelance writer living in

New York City. 63

Today,

operators and

builders of boats

grapple with

a broader

definition of

"safety" than

in the past.

P.3

Columbia University in the City of New York I New York, N.Y 10027

OFFICE OF GovERNNIF.NI RELATIONS

AND COMMUNITY AFFAiR5

301 Low Library

MEM_ O RANDUK

TO: Ellen S. smith, Director of Federal Relations

FROM: Ross M. Gotler

DATE: April 23, 1993

RE: Inouye Bills

On April 19, Senator Inouye introduced 8785, which concerns poli y regarding an on-board ship distress system. He also introduced S786, whi h concerns exempting certain ships from complying to requirements to carp, radiotelegraph equipment.

9785, The Radio Officer Act of 1993, strengthens the rules concerning t e upkeep of an on board distress system. The Global Maritime Distress and Saf y System (GMDSS) is not currently required on United States ships. Provided th the GMDSS is made mandatory on ships of over 1600 tons, Senator Inouye's S7 5 would require that on these ships, there be on board a person qualified maintain and repair the GMDSS. Under current GMDSS operating procedure, if tkle9e is a GMDSS system on board, shipowners are not required to have GMDSS maintenance capability on board. Testing for competency to maintain and repair the GMD would be carried out by the FCC in the form of an updated radio officer a-rod operator examination. Following is the text of the bill and Senator Inouye's statement regarding the bill.

cg's WASHINGTON ALERT 04/23/93

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS (CRTEXT 04/19/93 p-54632) .L *Senate bills introduced*

[pS46321 INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT

RESOLUTIONS By Mr. INOUYE (by request);

8785. A bill to require the Federal Communications Commission to promulgate rules pertaining to the use of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety 'System if such System is required on board United States ships; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Special typefaces used in this bill version: // \\ Italic 11 11 Bold roman

103D CONGRESS 1ST SESSION

S. 785

To require the Federal Communications Commission to promulgate rules pertaining to the use of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System if such system is required on board United States ships.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 19, 1993

Mr. INOUYE (by request) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

====== Maaa

A BILL

To require the Federal Communications Commission to promulgate rules pertaining to the use of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System if such system is required on board United States shipa.

//Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress asSembled,\\

!!SECTION. 1. PROMULGATION OF RULES PERTAINING TO USE OF GMDSS.11

If the Federal Communications Commission (hereafter referred to as the "Commission-) requires the use of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (hereafter referred to as the "GMDSS") on board United States ships of more than 1,600 gross tons, the Commission shall require, by rule--

(1) that one individual tested and certified by the Commission as competent shall be capable of on board maintenance and repair of the GMDSS; and

(2) that testing and certification standards for radio officers and operators on board such ships be upgraded to include competency standards for at-sea operation, maintenance, and repair of the GMDSS.

(pS46321 STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT

RESOLUTIONS1

By Mr. INOUYE (by request);

S785. A bill to require the Federal Communications Commission to promulgate rules pertaining to the use of the global maritime distress and safety system if such system is required on poard U.S. ships; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

RADIO OFFICER ACT OF 1993

I Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the FCC issued its rules to implement the global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS) on March 16, 1992. In that

rule the Commission permits shipowners to pick any two of three options for ensuring that GMDSS equipment is properly maintained: First, duplication of equipment, second, on-shore maintenance at the next port, or third, on-board maintenance capability. For cost reasons, shipowners are likely to select the first two options. The rule requires that there be a person on board who is qualified to operate GMDSS equipment, but having someone on board who can maintain and repair the equipment is optional. The FCC has yet to decide the qualifications for the GMDSS operator. 0

# Current law already requires ships greater than 1,600 tons to have certain radio telegraphy equipment on U.S. ships and radio officers on board qualified to operate it. The FCC examination for radio officers has not been updated since 1961 and the FCC concedes that it should be updated. Representing radio officers, the American Radio Association petitioned the FCC to update the exam. 0

0 Mr. President, this bill would require that any mandate for GMDSS for ships over 1,600 tons would include a requirement to have someone on board who is qualified by FCC examination to maintain and repair that equipment at ■ sea. In addition, the bill would require the FCC to update the radio officer! exam to include competency in at-sea maintenance, repair, and operation of GMDSS. 0

# Given the harsh sea environment and the increased complexity of electronic equipment on modern seagoing vessels, safety may be compromised if no on-board personnel can maintain and repair that equipment. 0

• The logical approach may be to upgrade the radio officer's exam to include GMDSS maintenance and repair, especially since current law requires the radio officer's presence on-board anyway. 0

• Mr. President, GMDSS will require over a decade to be fully implemented. The presence of a radio officer, trained in GMDSS maintenance and repair, will provide a safe transition. i

rpS4633)

z3

Senator Inouye, along with Senator Akaka, also introduced 5786, tits Communications Act of 1934 Amendment Act of 1993. The Act would amend le Communications Act to exempt United States flagships from being required to ha e radiotelegraph equipment and radio officers on board. This technology, Morqe Code, is currently being replaced by the new QMDSS safety system. Thus, if thee flagships have the GMDSS and are operating under the guidelines for GMDSS usagif, they would no longer be required to have the older equipment on board. Followilig is the text of the bill along with a statement by Senator Inouye concerning the bill.

CQ's WASHINGTON ALERT 04/23/93

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS (CRTEXT 04/19/93 p.S4632) *Senate bills introduced*

(p54632) INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT

RESOLUTIONS

By Hr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. AKAKA) (by request):

5786. A bill to provide for an exemption for certain United States flag ships from radio operator and equipment requirements; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Special typefaces used in this bill version: // \\ Italic 11 11 Bold roman

103D CONGRESS 1ST SESSION

S. 786

To provide for an exemption for certain United States flag ships from radio operator and equipment requirements.

=sa==a.aamaams=a∎=533==

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 19, 1993

Hr. INOUYE (by request) (for himself and Mr. AKAKA) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee On Commerce, Science, and Transportation

=71

A BILL

To provide for an exemption for certain United States flag ships from radio operator and equipment requirements.

//Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,\\

!!SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH GMDSS PROVISIONS.!!

Section 352(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 352(a)) is amended--

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (5) through (8) as paragraphs (6) through (9), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new paragraph:

"(5) a United States ship operating in accordance with the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System provisions of the Safety Convention;".

[1:44633 STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT

RESOLUTIONS -- By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. AKAKA) (by request):

5786. A bill to provide for an exemption for certain U.S.-flag ships from radio operator and equipment requirements; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

[p54633]

COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 AMENDMENT ACT OF 1933

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on behalf of the American Institute of Merchant Shipping (AIMS) I am introducing legislation which would amend part II of title III of the Communications Act of 1934. AIMS is a national trade association representing 24 U.S.-flag carriers which own or operate about 12 million deadweight tons of tankers, dry bulk carriers, container ships, and other oceangoing vessels in the domestic and international trades of the United States.

Specifically, the bill would amend section 352 of the Communications Act to exempt U.S.-flag ships from the requirement to carry radiotelegraph equipment and radio officers provided the vessels are operated in accordance with the global maritime distress and safety system [GMDSS] provisions of the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, and Federal Communication Commission [FCC] rules concerning GMDSS.

As the former chairman of the Merchant Marine Subcommittee and the current chairman of the Communications Subcommittee, I am aware that this proposal has its supporters and opponents. There is merit on both sides of the issue, and it is an important issue which can only be resolved by COngress. For that, reason, I regard this measure as a vehicle for hearings so that members may have an opportunity to hear all interested parties-the Coast Guard, the FCC,' U.S.-flag carriers, and maritime labor. Then we will be in a position to decide whether the legislation is necessary.

Mr. President, as with most maritime matters, the issues are somewhat complex and have their roots in longstanding laws and practices. In addition:! the most dynamic technology of the 20th century-telecommunication-is added tol the mix. The issues have become even more difficult.

In 1914, almost 80 years ago, following the sinking of the Titanic, the first International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS] was adopted. It required that certain ships maintain a continuous Morse code radiotelegraphy listening watch to ensure that calls from a ship in distress! would be received. The same requirement applied to coastal stations during their hours of service.

Until 1988, the use of Morse telegraphy as the primary international distress and calling system for ships at sea remained relatively unchanged since 1889, according to the Coast Guard. In 1988, however, the global maritime distress and safety system amendments to the Safety of Life at Sea Convention were adopted.

According to the FCC, GMDSS differs from the current distress and safety system in several ways. First, communication equipment are based primarily on the areas in which the ship operates, rather than the size of the ship. Second, the GMDSS is primarily a ship-to-shore system, designed to communicate with rescue authorities on shore, where the current system is primarily ship-to-ship. Finally, the GMDSS will ultimately replace the current manual Morse telegraphy system with satellite technology and digital, selective calling radios. This equipment uses voice and automated narrow-band; direct printing telegraphy for communications, and the key to GMDSS is that it is based on automated equipment.

Under GMDSS, all SOLAS cargo vessels over 300 tons must be able to perform nine crucial communications functions:

Ship-to-shore distress alerting;

Shore-to-ship distress alerting;

Ship-to-ship distress alerting;

Search and rescue coordination;

On-scene communication;

Transmission and receipt of locating signal;

Transmission and receipt of maritime safety information;

General radio communications; and

Bridge-to-bridge communications.

In 1992, the FCC amended its rules dealing with maritime radio services to implement the GMDSS, and noted that the GMDSS system will ultimately change international distress' communications from manual ship-to-ship system based on Morse code telegraphy to an automated ship-to-shore system based on the aforementioned satellites and digital technology. The FCC expressly stated, however, that the changes in its rules,

* * * do not relieve ships from the requirements specified in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Ships that carry radiotelegraphy equipment must continue to carry radio officers until the Communications Act is amended.

The measure I am introducing would amend the Communications Act and provide such an exemption. •